Well my Pan European OGRE/GEV force had its first outing as Imperial Fists.
Battle report will doubtless appear at some point on
Mark's Hordes of Things BlogMy next question, about a situation that did not occur in that battle, relates to the
transported "passengers" in a Bastion. The rule (transport note) says that occupants
can use their Fire Fight values in an assault. Would this apply if the Bastion were
subjected to Close Combat assault?
As written I think it means that the garrison could always firefight. This would make sense
because the walls etc keep the attackers out of close combat range and the defenders are in
prepared firing positions - possibly some distance back from those walls. They also are not
permitted to use close combat factors.
On the other hand, you could say they are part of the bastion and fight as that fights, . . .
No CC factor, can FF if some of opponents are not in base (CC) contact. As a warengine
the bastion can opt for FF if some enemy are at firefight range, . . .
This would seem pretty harsh on the garrison of an immobile position, especially since if the
bastion is destroyed in the assault (it takes ALL of the hits) the passengers all take a hit, which
would nicely simulate the attackers breaking into the position.
So I think from the above I support the top option (as I read the rule). But wanted to check
what is intended.
Unrelated, and entirely to satisfy my curiosity, what was the thinking behind the switch from
saying bunkers conferred a RA4+ save on infantry, into, the 4+ cover save that works against MW
and that also provides a 4+ cover save re-roll for non-MW attacks. I can see that it disadvantages
Lance hits, but can't see what else is affected. TK hits will still wipe out units without a save.
Happy New Year to ALL
